Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam View Post
    If the whistleblower broke a law by approaching HPSCI before making a complaint to ICIG, what law would that be?
    I posted a source earlier.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...nel-before-ig/

    ...the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 explicitly requires an official concerned about wrongdoing within the government to go to the IC inspector general before the congressional panels in charge of oversight of the intelligence community.

    Under a section titled, “Summary of Procedures for Reporting Urgent Concerns Pursuant to the ICWPA,” the official Director of National Intelligence (DNI) website states:
    The employee may contact the congressional intelligence committees directly as described in clause (i) only if the employee –

    a. before making such a contact, furnishes to the DNI, through the IC IG, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly; and
    b. obtains and follows from the DNI, through the IC IG, direction on how to contact the congressional intelligence committees in accordance with necessary and appropriate security procedures.

    The CIA whistleblower in question went to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff’s office days before the intelligence community’s inspector general, the internal investigator, and watchdog.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      I meant this statement:

      You want your aid? Help me dig up dirt on my 2020 political rival.
      You forgot to mention the diabolical cackle that surely followed this remark.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • And then there's this...

        Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison stands by his phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump as a “simple granting of a very reasonable request” to a “trusted and respected ally.”

        Asked about the exchange after delivering a lecture in Sydney on Thursday night, the prime minister said it was all totally “unremarkable.”

        “It wouldn’t matter which president was conducting this investigation … it would be extraordinary for a prime minister to deny what was a very straightforward request,” SBS News reports.

        https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-donald-trump/

        But I'm sure he's lying because he doesn't want to anger Donald "The Godfather" Trump!
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 explicitly requires an official concerned about wrongdoing within the government to go to the IC inspector general before the congressional panels in charge of oversight of the intelligence community.
          Under a section titled, “Summary of Procedures for Reporting Urgent Concerns Pursuant to the ICWPA,” the official Director of National Intelligence (DNI) website states:
          The employee may contact the congressional intelligence committees directly as described in clause (i) only if the employee –
          a. before making such a contact, furnishes to the DNI, through the IC IG, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly; and
          b. obtains and follows from the DNI, through the IC IG, direction on how to contact the congressional intelligence committees in accordance with necessary and appropriate security procedures.
          But the whistleblower didn't go to HPSCI with a complaint or even with specific information about the complaint, which is the context of "as described in clause (i)" part. What that part of the statue says is that if a complaint is submitted to the ICIG and if the ICIG declines to refer it to Congress then the employee may go directly to Congress with the complaint. Because, remember, the whole context here is what to do with complaints that include classified information.

          No law against the employee going to Congress with non-classified information seeking direction on how to proceed.

          --Sam
          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam View Post
            But the whistleblower didn't go to HPSCI with a complaint or even with specific information about the complaint, which is the context of "as described in clause (i)" part.
            Yes he did. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/u...tleblower.html

            What that part of the statue says is that if a complaint is submitted to the ICIG and if the ICIG declines to refer it to Congress then the employee may go directly to Congress with the complaint. Because, remember, the whole context here is what to do with complaints that include classified information.
            Exactly. It gives no provision for a whistleblower to address the HPSCI directly. The ICWPI says specifically that complaints must be made to the IG first.

            https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...105publ272.htm

            ``(C) Any other employee of, or contractor to, an executive agency,
            or element or unit thereof, determined by the President under section
            2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) of title 5, United States Code, to have as its
            principal function the conduct of foreign intelligence or
            counterintelligence activities, who intends to report to Congress a
            complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern may report
            the complaint or information to the appropriate Inspector General (or
            designee) under this Act or section 17 of the Central Intelligence
            Agency Act of 1949.

            No law against the employee going to Congress with non-classified information seeking direction on how to proceed.
            Yes it is. As cited above. The law says report it to their IG.
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            - Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Yes he did. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/u...tleblower.html



              Exactly. It gives no provision for a whistleblower to address the HPSCI directly. The ICWPI says specifically that complaints must be made to the IG first.

              https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...105publ272.htm

              ``(C) Any other employee of, or contractor to, an executive agency,
              or element or unit thereof, determined by the President under section
              2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) of title 5, United States Code, to have as its
              principal function the conduct of foreign intelligence or
              counterintelligence activities, who intends to report to Congress a
              complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern may report
              the complaint or information to the appropriate Inspector General (or
              designee) under this Act or section 17 of the Central Intelligence
              Agency Act of 1949.



              Yes it is. As cited above. The law says report it to their IG.
              As the article clearly states and as Rosenberg reiterated later, the whistleblower came to HPSCI with a "vague accusation". No official complaint, no classified intel.

              The law says that the complaint containing classified or potentially classified information goes to ICIG. Then, if ICIG doesn't send it to Congress, the complaint containing classified or potentially classified information can go directly to Congress. The law does not stipulate that an employee cannot approach Congress with non-classified, vague allegations.

              What on earth do you all even believe would happen in court? The whistleblower didn't share any classified information and has a clear First Amendment right to free speech. They could go to NYT, Fox News, or any other media outlet and allege abuse and -- so long as they weren't exposing classified information -- would not be breaking any law.

              Pull up, think it through for just a minute.

              --Sam
              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                As the article clearly states and as Rosenberg reiterated later, the whistleblower came to HPSCI with a "vague accusation". No official complaint, no classified intel.
                Doesn't matter. Because he didn't report to the IG directly, he didn't follow proper procedures, and disqualified himself from whistleblower protection. That they are extending it to him is an act of grace.

                The law says that the complaint containing classified or potentially classified information goes to ICIG.
                I LITERALLY quoted the relevant portion. who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICWPI deals with more than just classified information.

                Then, if ICIG doesn't send it to Congress, the complaint containing classified or potentially classified information can go directly to Congress. The law does not stipulate that an employee cannot approach Congress with non-classified, vague allegations.
                If they want whistleblower protection, it does. It specifically states the proper channels.

                What on earth do you all even believe would happen in court? The whistleblower didn't share any classified information and has a clear First Amendment right to free speech. They could go to NYT, Fox News, or any other media outlet and allege abuse and -- so long as they weren't exposing classified information -- would not be breaking any law.
                Because he didn't follow proper channels, he could have his clearance revoked, or be fired.

                Pull up, think it through for just a minute.
                YOU think what we are saying through. We are not saying his conduct was criminal. We, and me specifically, are saying he went around the proper process and jeopardized his status as a whistleblower. That he was granted that status could have been challenged on the law itself had the President seen fit. And the President would have the law on his side.
                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  As the article clearly states and as Rosenberg reiterated later, the whistleblower came to HPSCI with a "vague accusation". No official complaint, no classified intel.

                  ...
                  The Act says no direct contact prior to receiving permission from the IG. Contact - content is irrelevant.

                  The 'whistle blower' violated the Act and therefore enjoys no whistle blower status or protection.
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Doesn't matter. Because he didn't report to the IG directly, he didn't follow proper procedures, and disqualified himself from whistleblower protection. That they are extending it to him is an act of grace.



                    I LITERALLY quoted the relevant portion. who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICWPI deals with more than just classified information.



                    If they want whistleblower protection, it does. It specifically states the proper channels.



                    Because he didn't follow proper channels, he could have his clearance revoked, or be fired.



                    YOU think what we are saying through. We are not saying his conduct was criminal. We, and me specifically, are saying he went around the proper process and jeopardized his status as a whistleblower. That he was granted that status could have been challenged on the law itself had the President seen fit. And the President would have the law on his side.

                    No, what Mountain Man said was that he broke the law, not that he didn't proceed through proper channels and therefore could be lawfully retaliated against. He didn't break the law and Republican senators Grassley and Burr have said as much. You're just reading the statute in a way it wasn't intended (for classified information contained in a whistleblower complaint to be revealed to Congress in a specific manner), for whatever reason. Go back and look at the legislative history and why the law was enacted for the proper context.

                    But, hey, I've hit pretty good marks for my judicial interpretations here of late so if and when the question ever gets to court, I'm willing to put some money down on it.

                    --Sam
                    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                      No, what Mountain Man said was that he broke the law, not that he didn't proceed through proper channels and therefore could be lawfully retaliated against. He didn't break the law and Republican senators Grassley and Burr have said as much. You're just reading the statute in a way it wasn't intended (for classified information contained in a whistleblower complaint to be revealed to Congress in a specific manner), for whatever reason. Go back and look at the legislative history and why the law was enacted for the proper context.

                      But, hey, I've hit pretty good marks for my judicial interpretations here of late so if and when the question ever gets to court, I'm willing to put some money down on it.

                      --Sam
                      Violating the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 is breaking the law. The procedure is set forth in law - and both MM and BTC quoted the exact section so you darn well knew it wasn't mere departmental policy.
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        Violating the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 is breaking the law. The procedure is set forth in law - and both MM and BTC quoted the exact section so you darn well knew it wasn't mere departmental policy.
                        It's not a violation if it doesn't contain classified or potentially classified information. If it were it'd be an unconstitutional law since people have an unambiguously clear right to free speech.

                        Y'all are just reading the thing wrong and trying to ignore the context of the law. If you think a judge would look at vague allegations of wrongdoing and call that a violation of ICWPA, that's on you. We're not going to get to put it to an objective test, of course, because even Barr's DOJ is never going to make a criminal referral, for obvious reasons.

                        Well, I take that back. Could very easily see Trump finding out the whistleblower's identity and retaliating, which would set up a civil lawsuit and there'd be the test right there. Since multiple members of congressional judiciary and intelligence committees have gone on record already to say the whistleblower followed the appropriate procedure, should be a quick hearing.

                        --Sam
                        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                          It's not a violation if it doesn't contain classified or potentially classified information. If it were it'd be an unconstitutional law since people have an unambiguously clear right to free speech.

                          Y'all are just reading the thing wrong and trying to ignore the context of the law. If you think a judge would look at vague allegations of wrongdoing and call that a violation of ICWPA, that's on you. We're not going to get to put it to an objective test, of course, because even Barr's DOJ is never going to make a criminal referral, for obvious reasons.

                          Well, I take that back. Could very easily see Trump finding out the whistleblower's identity and retaliating, which would set up a civil lawsuit and there'd be the test right there. Since multiple members of congressional judiciary and intelligence committees have gone on record already to say the whistleblower followed the appropriate procedure, should be a quick hearing.

                          --Sam
                          Content is irrelevant - go READ THE THING.

                          Heck, HERE: (C&P from MM)


                          https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...nel-before-ig/

                          ...the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 explicitly requires an official concerned about wrongdoing within the government to go to the IC inspector general before the congressional panels in charge of oversight of the intelligence community.

                          Under a section titled, “Summary of Procedures for Reporting Urgent Concerns Pursuant to the ICWPA,” the official Director of National Intelligence (DNI) website states:
                          The employee may contact the congressional intelligence committees directly as described in clause (i) only if the employee –

                          a. before making such a contact, furnishes to the DNI, through the IC IG, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly; and
                          b. obtains and follows from the DNI, through the IC IG, direction on how to contact the congressional intelligence committees in accordance with necessary and appropriate security procedures.

                          ...

                          *emphasis mine

                          No mention of classified material; states directly contacting CIC's requires IG approval. You are the one who 'is reading it wrong'.


                          In order to be protected by the Act, the person MUST FOLLOW THE ABOVE PROCEDURE. Contacting a member of the Intelligence Committee's office without the IG's okay VIOLATES that provision.

                          There is no whistle blower other than in name. The complainant gave up that protection when he/she contacted Schiff, regardless of whether classified material was involved.
                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Quill Sword

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                            Paying off women he slept with, for one.
                            So, campaign finance law infraction, he should never have been president, correct.


                            Being a womanizer, for two. Being generally immoral, for three. I wouldn’t want to hang out with Trump or work directly for him either.
                            We already know he was a crook, immoral womanizing, con man. The question is about his presidency. What about since he's been in office, lilpix, what action do you think he is criminally guilty of?
                            Last edited by JimL; 10-03-2019, 04:35 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Too bad none of that actually happened...
                              There are none so blind............

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                                Content is irrelevant - go READ THE THING.

                                Heck, HERE: (C&P from MM)


                                https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...nel-before-ig/

                                ...the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 explicitly requires an official concerned about wrongdoing within the government to go to the IC inspector general before the congressional panels in charge of oversight of the intelligence community.

                                Under a section titled, “Summary of Procedures for Reporting Urgent Concerns Pursuant to the ICWPA,” the official Director of National Intelligence (DNI) website states:
                                The employee may contact the congressional intelligence committees directly as described in clause (i) only if the employee –

                                a. before making such a contact, furnishes to the DNI, through the IC IG, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly; and
                                b. obtains and follows from the DNI, through the IC IG, direction on how to contact the congressional intelligence committees in accordance with necessary and appropriate security procedures.

                                ...

                                *emphasis mine

                                No mention of classified material; states directly contacting CIC's requires IG approval. You are the one who 'is reading it wrong'.


                                In order to be protected by the Act, the person MUST FOLLOW THE ABOVE PROCEDURE. Contacting a member of the Intelligence Committee's office without the IG's okay VIOLATES that provision.

                                There is no whistle blower other than in name. The complainant gave up that protection when he/she contacted Schiff, regardless of whether classified material was involved.
                                Already pointed out the contextual misreading of the statutory language.

                                This is not unlike people who keep saying that something violates the Logan Act or how so-and-so can be prosecuted for RICO or libel or whatever by "just reading what the law says". The scope of the law matters, as does legislative intent. You can try arguing that Congress meant ICWPA as a gag order against any and all discussion of complaints, regardless of whether classified information is shared, but you'd be wrong and setting yourself up for a big legal disappointment. You can, conversely, read the statute as intended -- creating a lawful pathway for whistleblowers to share classified information in the course of an abuse complaint -- and understand what even the Republican chairs of relevant committees are saying, that the whistleblower followed proper protocol.

                                One of those makes sense and coexists fine with 1A protections. One is plainly unconstitutional and a torturous reading of the statute.

                                --Sam
                                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                180 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                416 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                85 responses
                                393 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X